Espinoza

People v. Espinoza

Good Law
1966 Cal. App. LEXIS 1292·241 Cal. App. 2d 718·50 Cal. Rptr. 879
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 27, 1966Crim. 10648California751 words

Opinion

Opinion

Fleming, J.

George Espinoza pleaded guilty to one count of armed robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). Two prior felony convictions were charged and denied. After the prosecution introduced the judgment and sentence records of the prior convictions, the defendant testified he had not had the assistance of counsel at the time of his prior convictions. The trial court found that the charge of two prior convictions was true.

1. Defendant initially contends that his plea of guilty was involuntary. (Pen. Code, § 1018.) He argues that his plea was unlawfully impelled by the knowledge that the police had obtained a confession from him, a confession secured in violation of the constitutional rights set forth in People v. Dorado, 62 Cal.2d 338 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 169 , 398 P.2d 361 ]. This argument is without legal effect. First, defendant never moved to withdraw his guilty plea as required by Penal Code, section 1018. Second, the transcript reflects that Espinoza pleaded guilty of his own volition with full knowledge of his rights and with the concurrence of his counsel. His guilt was established by the plea itself and not through the use of illegally-obtained evidence. (People v. Wendes, 237 Cal.App.2d 814,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.